¹ú²úAV

In sum, considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the imposed disciplinary and administrative measures were adequate in light of the Administration’s scope of discretion in this matter.

The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT order. UNAT held that, where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of UNDT RoP have elapsed, and where UNDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the UNDT Statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension of action for these five days. To find otherwise would render Article 2. 2 of the UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. UNAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. UNAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal of UNDT Order No. 233, which contended that UNDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. UNAT found that UNDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. UNAT noted that Article 36 of the UNDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the UNDT Order, as there was no case before UNDT to which Article 36 could apply. UNAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow UNDT to...

UNAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. UNAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to UNMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNDT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. UNDT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. UNDT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper...

The Tribunal found that the decision was illegal and ordered that it be rescinded, and that the Applicant be granted USD3,000 as compensation for the material damages. Administrative decision/receivability ratione temporis The preliminary determination by an Interview Panel that a person is not eligible to apply for a vacancy announcement does not produce direct legal consequences and as such does not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(c) and art. 2(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. The statutory time-limit of staff rule 11.2(c) only starts to run once a final...

Selection process: The Tribunal accepted that in the absence of any incumbent of the D-2 post, the decision of the USG/DFS, as Head of Department, to assume direct responsibility for the recruitment process through the Chief of Staff, was not an improper exercise of discretion.Second set of interviews and composition of the Second Panel: The Tribunal found that the decision to hold a second round of interviews, and the composition of the Panel, did not amount to a procedural irregularity in the particular circumstances of this case.Lengthy delay in the selection procedure: The Tribunal...

The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent’s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. UNDT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant’s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants’ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant’s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...